Re: ANR8447E .. Mount failed even though several drives in "idle" status

Thanks for the reply Rich...

I am curious about the following from Quick Facts

        In a library shared by multiple servers, you need to define the
number
        of drives actually allocated to each server; otherwise, if you let
        DRIVES prevail, each server may think it should have access to all
the
        drives in the library.

This is a library sharing environment and devclass's on both servers are
set to MOUNTL=DRIVES.   This is the way I have had it set up for a couple
years and I have not noticed it being a problem before.  Actually, I
thought it was recommended to use MOUNTL=DRIVES...but Quick Facts says
otherwise.  Far be it from me to question a quick fact........buuuuttttt
it seems lowering the MOUNTL to something less than "drives" would
somewhat defeat the idea of library sharing.  Does a pre-empt of
MOUNTRETENTION only apply if the "idle" drive was locally allocated?

Thanks in advance

David R. Nicholson





Richard Sims <rbs AT BU DOT EDU>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
04/05/2005 07:39 AM
Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager"


        To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
        cc:
        Subject:        Re: ANR8447E .. Mount failed even though several drives 
in "idle" status


Mount retention is pre-empted to gain access to a drive, providing that
no process or session is engaged to use the drive and media.
See that msg in http://people.bu.edu/rbs/ADSM.QuickFacts for reasons we
have experienced. Check your Devclass MOUNTLimit as the most common
cause, plus your Activity Log for accompanying messages.

   Richard Sims

On Apr 5, 2005, at 7:23 AM, David Nicholson wrote:

> All,
>
> TSM Server 5.2.4.0  (AIX 5.3)
> 3494 library w/ (15) 3590E
>
>         Suddenly (I think) I am getting a LOT of ANR8447E messages.
> A "q
> mount" shows several drives in an "idle" state. My mount retention is
> set
> to '3'.  I thought that the mount retention would be preempted if there
> was a need to mount  a new tape. Can someone confirm or deny this for
> me?
> I am finding if I manually "dismount vol xxxxxx" the problem goes away
> for
> a bit until I get several "idle" drives again.